Talk:Aeolidiella alderi
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Aeolidiella alderi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the nudibranch Aeolidiella alderi attacks sea anemones with the stinging cells it has already acquired from other anemones? Source: "Ces cnidosacs conservent intacts et prêts à servir les cnidocytes urticants que le nudibranche a capturés chez ses proies en les mangeant."
- Reviewed: WDOM
- Comment: I think this is one day late.
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 17:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC).
This is technically late since we need to go back to 8 August to get strict 5x expansion. But most of the expansion was actually done on 13 August so I think we can let that one pass. On what basis is File:Aeolidiella alderi 2.png declared to be CC 4.0? The page on which it is sourced to says "© 2020 Springer Nature Limited". Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ done. SpinningSpark 14:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: The image was in the article before I expanded it and I did not consider whether its licence was correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you are not personally responsible, but this still needs to be fixed or the image removed. I've been caught out myself numerous times when I've used images I didn't upload myself and they've turned out to have dodgy or incomplete licensing. For an image that is sourced to a website that declares copyright for it, we would normally expect to see an OTRS ticket number displayed that shows evidence has been provided to the team that the copyright holder has suitably licesed it. Or alternatively, the page could show that the source does not actually own copyright through it being previously published elsewhere (PD-OLD for instance, or it had previously been released under a free license). Whatever, it cannot stand as it is and pass DYK. SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have nominated the image for deletion and removed it from the article. Spinningspark, please continue with the review. Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The image was the only issue as far as I am concerned. SpinningSpark 23:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you are not personally responsible, but this still needs to be fixed or the image removed. I've been caught out myself numerous times when I've used images I didn't upload myself and they've turned out to have dodgy or incomplete licensing. For an image that is sourced to a website that declares copyright for it, we would normally expect to see an OTRS ticket number displayed that shows evidence has been provided to the team that the copyright holder has suitably licesed it. Or alternatively, the page could show that the source does not actually own copyright through it being previously published elsewhere (PD-OLD for instance, or it had previously been released under a free license). Whatever, it cannot stand as it is and pass DYK. SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: The image was in the article before I expanded it and I did not consider whether its licence was correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
